Obama Farewell Address Looks to the Future

 

On Tuesday January 10 President Barack Obama delivered his Farewell Address at the McCormick Center in Chicago, bookending his improbable ascent to the presidency in the city where it began. The speech was vintage Obama, displaying his remarkable oratorical gifts, hopeful and optimistic despite all he's had to endure, and calling us to answer our better angels while remaining committed to staying involved to make our world a better place.

There was just a bit of self-congratulation, modest compared to what the President could have said. He pointed out that "no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and carried out an operation in America during these eight years." We have "cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and doubled our production of renewables." "If, considering the economic conditions we came in on, someone had said eight years ago we would have been able to cut unemployment more than in half and have a record 75 consecutive months of positive job creation" that would have been hailed as quite an achievement. We also have "the lowest uninsured rate in history and the growth in health care cost is the lowest it's been in 50 years." These are all accurate assessments for which the Administration has every right to be justly proud.

Obama also administered "three warnings" based on his assessment that "American democracy is under assault." "We must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are," he said. The warnings had to do with income inequality, race relations and excessive partisanship. Growing income inequality threatens to poison society by denying upward mobility to average Americans, creating cynicism and desperation that finds expression in extremist solutions. It also feeds demagoguery that points to groups as scapegoats for lack of progress, turning Americans against one another.

He mentioned that some felt his election in 2008 meant the country had entered a "post-racial" phase, but that such a view is unrealistic. He said "I've lived long enough to be able to say that things have definitely improved in the past 30 years, but we still have work to do." In the fields of housing, criminal justice and education "hearts must change." He quoted the fictional character Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird that to understand another person you must have empathy, to be able to imagine what it's like to walk around in their skin.

Excessive partisanship was the President's third cautionary warning. Too often, he said, "we retreat into our own bubbles." He pointed out a "fragmentation, only accepting information that fits our opinions." We need and must accept "a common baseline of fact and information," that "science and reason matter," and that "without common ground compromise is impossible." He decried the "selective distortion of the facts." The entire tendency is, he summed up, "self-defeating." It is characterized by a "fear of change, fear of differences, and intolerance of free thought." Quoting George Washington from the first president's Farewell Address, Obama said "We should reject the first attempt to alienate any part of the American people from another."

He ended with an appeal to activism, saying that the system does respond to the strong voice of the people when it is loud and insistent. He called upon the young, who "do not see change as something to be feared" to spearhead a renewed drive for "a fair, just, and inclusive America." Leaving the presidency at just 55, one can well imagine Barack Obama continuing to serve as an active catalyst for the vision he has worked so hard to further over the past eight years in the White House.

Census Bureau: Incomes Up, Poverty Down!

One of the big news items of the week concerns outstanding economic news from the Census Bureau. Major progress in family income and a big drop in the poverty rate headlined a report that surprised many with gains that had not been seen in decades. The figures, covering 2015, were immediately touted by President Obama and ought to provide a boost to the Clinton campaign as they are good news for the incumbent party.

Median household income grew 5.2% for the year, to $56,516, a gain of $2,800 in one year. It was the largest year-to-year improvement since records have been kept. Even more remarkable, it was the poorer end of the population that saw the biggest gains. The bottom ten percent saw their average incomes grow by 7.8%, while the top ten percent grew by 2.9%. The poverty rate went from 14.8% in 2014 to 13.5% in 2015, the largest yearly percentage drop since 1968. Three and a half million people were lifted out of poverty status in one year. The minimum wage was raised in 20 states, likely a big part of the reason for the strong performance. The jobs picture was also strong. "Last year, 1.4 million more men and 1 million more women were working full time year-round than in 2014," the census found.

There was good news on health care, too. 2015 saw 9.1% of Americans without health insurance, a drop from 10.4% the previous year, and the lowest uninsured rate on record. That was a single-year reduction of 4 million people, from 33 million to 29 million. The primary reason was the second full year of  implementation the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. These are rather spectacular gains. When the ACA was passed, some 15% of the population was not covered, about 47 million people. We thus already have 18 million more people, 6% of the population, insured than before the Act.

The news does not correspond to the Trump campaign's narrative of stagnating jobs and wages. Trump campaign economic spokesman Peter Navarro "did not respond to requests for comment" on the report. Meanwhile the President, campaigning for Clinton in Pennsylvania, said, "So now let's face it; the Republicans don't like to hear good news right now. But it's important just to understand this is a big deal. More Americans are working, more have health insurance, incomes are rising, poverty is falling, and gas is $2 a gallon...Thanks, Obama!"

Replacing Scalia

I confess it was with no great sadness that I heard of the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia this past weekend. Known as the intellectual linchpin of the tribunal's conservative wing, Justice Scalia took great pains to protect the rights of corporations as if they were people but paid scant attention to protecting the rights of actual people. President Obama has announced he will fulfill his constitutional duty under Article II to nominate a successor. Now we will find out whether the Republican majority in the Senate will go through with its threats to refuse to exercise its constitutional mandate to vote to confirm or deny the president's choice. If so, their political flackery will have reached unprecedented heights, even for them. Such a course would likely hurt them in this November's election.

Scalia voted with the 5-4 majority to stop the 2000 Florida recount, awarding the presidency to George W. Bush without the inconvenience of an accurate vote tabulation. He was the similarly deciding vote in cases that overturned forty years of precedents and gave corporations the same rights as human beings, the Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings. He voted to gut the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, another 5-4 ruling that has been used, through GOP gerrymandering, to once again disenfranchise black voting strength across the South. In his opinion the Fourteenth Amendment ("No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") does not guarantee equal rights for women and LGBT Americans. He stated "In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry to tell you that." (Source of Scalia quote.) It does not sadden me that such a jurist is no longer on the bench of the nation's highest court.

Within hours of news of Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that no vote would be taken on any successor until after the November election, that a new president should make the selection. McConnell's gambit would deny President Obama the opportunity to name a progressive jurist, hoping for a Republican victory to allow conservatives to maintain their majority on the tribunal. Obama, however, in his own statement, promised to exercise his constitutional responsibility to fill the vacancy, and called on the Senate to follow theirs, to vet the nominee and have a vote. Here are the political considerations. If the Republicans dig in their heels and refuse action they will succeed in ginning up their own base. Committed conservatives would be more motivated to come out and vote for President to prevent a liberal Supreme Court majority. But the converse is also true. Democrats would make this a major issue, firing up their own base to show up and ensure a new Court more friendly to consumers and minorities than corporations and bigots. The deciding factor would be with independents. I feel the maneuver would push most independents in the Democrats' direction. If Obama were to nominate someone who has been already unanimously confirmed by the whole Senate for a lower Court position, independents would see the Republican tactic for the partisan political power play it is, hurting them with the undecideds and helping Democrats in close congressional elections and in battleground states if the presidential election is close. That's why we are already starting to see some GOP senators back away from the scorched earth approach. Look for the next three weeks to tell the story. By then the President will make his nomination and the ball will be in McConnell's "court," so to speak.

Obama SOTU a Masterpiece

President Obama's last State of the Union Address (watch it here) focused primarily on three things: what's been accomplished so far, what will need doing for the future, and areas where the two parties might actually be able to work together to get some things done in the near term. Throughout, the President was able to display the winning personality, oratorical skills and compelling logic that won him two national elections. 

 

Accomplishments included recovery from the worst economy since the Great Depression, the reform of health care, much improved health care for veterans, ending the Cold War with Cuba, forging a climate agreement with nearly 200 nations, getting Iran to stop its nuclear program, and securing "the freedom in every state to marry the person we love." There was much to praise about achievements in the economy. "People who say our economy is in decline are peddling fiction," he said. The U.S. economy is the strongest in the world, with 14 million jobs created during the longest job growth streak in history, autos having their best year ever, oil imports down by 60%, "gas under two bucks a gallon isn't too bad either," more Americans employed in solar now than coal, and 18 million people newly covered with health care. He pointed out that too much of the growth is going to the high earners, and that "regular people don't get bigger paychecks by letting corporations write all the rules."

Obama's look into the future featured four aspects: broadening opportunity and security, making the "tech revolution work for us rather than against us," "how to keep the world safe without being the world's policeman," and how to "make our politics reflect what's best in us, not the worst." The last of these had some clear digs at the type of bombastic and xenophobic demagoguery currently apparent in the Republican presidential campaign field. His words may have little effect with them, but at least he has the satisfaction of being right.

The President thanked Speaker Ryan (behind him, right in the picture above) for helping shepherd a compromise budget through the House, and saluted congress for education reform with the recent No Child Left Behind overhaul. He went on to outline areas where he felt the two parties ought to be able to take action in a bipartisan fashion soon. There is, for example, a growing consensus for a more rehabilitative criminal justice reform. Progress is imminent on help for prescription drug and heroin addiction. And Obama got his best reception when proposing a massive new "moon shot program to eradicate cancer," naming Vice President Joe Biden (back left in the photo above), who lost his son to cancer last year, to head the effort. This was greeting by thunderous roars from both sides of the aisle.    

President Obama closed with the theme that brought the then-relatively unknown Illinois State Senator Barack Obama to national prominence in a speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention that nominated John Kerry. "All this is within our reach. But it will only happen if we can work together...to fix our politics. Democracy requires basic trust among us, and grinds to a halt when we refuse to compromise...A lot of politicians are trapped by the rancor of their base--we must change the system!"

The President pointed to the need for nonpartisan redistricting, reducing the influence of money in the political process and making it easier to vote. He remarked that the only thing he really regrets about his time in office has been his inability to make much of a dent in overcoming the political polarization rampant in government. But he urged the American people to reject cynicism and insist their representatives reflect the people's desire to work together for the common good. His voice has been the right message at the right time in our national story. That it has not been much heard by the Republicans is disappointing, but has not dimmed its righteousness or the inevitability of its triumph in the end if America is to survive. As Dr. Martin Luther King reminded us, "We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."    
 

Obama Does What He Can on Guns

I am often reminded how proud I am to have voted for President Barack Obama twice. He invariably pursues a course trying to serve the needs and interests of the American people as a whole. Today was again one of those days. This morning he addressed the nation to present common sense Executive actions he is taking to enforce the laws and stem the carnage visited upon America by gun violence, a plague that kills some 30,000 Americans every year. These actions fall under four steps.

The first is to tighten up the currently required background check system. Anyone selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks. This will effectively close the "gun show loophole" problem. In order to facilitate this, the computer system will be upgraded and more workers will be assigned to do the checks. "Anyone selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks or they will be indicted and prosecuted," the President said.

The second is also about beefing up enforcement. The President directs that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms hire and train 200 new agents. The new regulations will require and the additional agents will make possible the more rapid reporting of lost or stolen guns, and empower greater scrutiny and enforcement against offenders convicted of domestic violence.

Step three comprises more resources for mental health. It includes the redirection of $500 million into expanded access for mental health treatment. The Affordable Care Act already provides the framework for delivering these services, and most of the mass shooters of recent years have been seriously mentally disturbed. This directive also requires that such mental health records be reported to those doing the background checks and to state agencies as well.

The fourth area is about requiring safety technology in guns. 500 shooting deaths a year come from accidents, many involving children, and hundreds of murders are committed with stolen guns. The President observed that phones can be protected so the owner's fingerprint is needed for activation. Why not for guns? Through GPS we can locate an iPad wherever it is. Why not a gun? Aspirin tablets have childproof caps. Why not gun safeties or triggers? New regulations will be forthcoming on such specifics.

These are all eminently sensible safeguards, already permitted by law and supported by the vast majority of the American people. The President teared up when going over the list of school shootings, including the first graders at Newtown. "Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad," he explained. He wants more steps too, but frankly admitted they won't be enacted during his presidency by this Congress, and called on citizens to make their voices and votes known. Connecticut, for example, has seen a 40% reduction in gun deaths since enacting 100% mandatory background checks, and Missouri has seen its spike to 50% above the national average since getting rid of theirs.

He concluded, "The gun lobby may hold Congress hostage but they can't hold America hostage. Yes, they are well organized, but we need to be just as organized in defense of our kids. If they know it's going to be harder to win elections if they keep blocking these laws they'll stop blocking these laws, I promise you." CNN will host a Presidential Town Hall on gun issues Thursday at 5:00 P.M. PST.

Obama Adminstration Achievements in 2015

Despite opposition from and dysfunction in the Republican-controlled congress, 2015 has been another year of remarkable achievements for the Obama administration. On the economic front, the past 12 months have seen the creation of 2,637,00 jobs, and the all-time record of consecutive positive job creation months is now up to 69. A moderate growth rate of 2.1% combined with a low 0.5% inflation rate has yielded a healthy net growth rate of 1.6% over inflation. The United States is now the largest oil producer in the world, while at the same time renewable energy production continues to break records with each passing day and fuel economy continues to grow. The result is a 27% reduction in oil imports and a huge price savings for the American consumer at the pump. Here's a list of the highlights of accomplishments in 2015.

April 16: New Medicare reimbursement formula rewards doctors for health outcomes instead of just for performing services.
April 16: Medicare Access and CHIP (Children's Health) Reauthorization Act signed.
June 30: Overtime pay threshold for hourly workers improved from $23,660 through $50,440.
July 14: US and Cuba reopen embassies after 54 years.
July 16: US and six major powers reach agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear program and accept inspections in exchange for sanctions relief.
August 4: Each state required to reduce its carbon emissions to set targets by 2030.
August 18: First openly transgender employee hired by the White House.
September 3: Discrimination against transgender people in health or medical insurance is banned.
September 7: Employees of federal contractors must be offered at least 7 days of paid sick leave per year.
September 18: First openly gay American nominated for Secretary of the Army.
October 6: Sentences reduced and adapted for 6,000 people serving excessive punishment for nonviolent crimes.
October 22: 70 ISIS hostages rescued in Iraq by US Special Forces.
November 6: Keystone Oil Pipeline rejected for not serving the interests of the United States.
December 3: All military positions become open to females.
December 10: Every Student Succeeds Act signed.

Obama Address on Terrorism

I watched President Obama's Oval Office "Address on Terrorism" Sunday night. His remarks were occasioned by recent events. ISIS or ISIS-inspired terrorists have put themselves squarely in the public's consciousness as a result of the highly organized internationally directed attack in Paris and then the seemingly independently undertaken attack in San Bernardino, California. The President showed the gravity of the matter by speaking to the public from the Oval Office for only the third time in his presidency.

He tried to strike a balance between respecting the seriousness of the threat, reassuring the American people that all reasonable steps are being taken, and making an appeal to remember our values. Mr. Obama stated that "ISIS and any other  organization that threatens Americans must and will be destroyed." He pledged that the ongoing campaign would be "strong and smart, resilient and ruthless." But he also made a plea that anger over terrorism not turn into intolerance against the Muslim religion and Muslim Americans as a whole.

The actions highlighted were a continuation of what is already being done, including stepped-up air attacks and special forces raids in Iraq and Syria, training of more Iraqi, Kurdish and Syrian forces, cutting off terrorist funding sources, enlisting more Muslim authorities to counter ISIS propaganda about the true nature of Muslim teachings, and pursuing diplomatic efforts to expand the growing coalition and a cease-fire in Syria that would allow all parties to focus on eliminating ISIS. These are all the same strategies every Republican and Democratic presidential candidate except two are already advocating. The two exceptions are Lindsay Graham, who wants to invade with American ground troops and Donald Trump, who is advocating fascist tactics like "registering all American Muslims," "going after the families" of terrorists and preventing any Muslim from entering the United States.

President Obama asked for congressional help on four items. He wants an official authorization of the use of military force, legislation mandating tighter screening for those entering the US without a Visa, a law making it illegal to sell a gun to anyone on a terrorist watch list, and a law making it harder for people to buy "high-powered assault rifles." The second and third of these requests might conceivably be passed, but the first and fourth have no chance in a majority Republican congress. Republicans overwhelmingly support the kinds of military action the President is taking, but they have heretofore avoided taking such a vote, likely afraid that if things go sideways they might be held partially to blame. It's easier and politically safer to criticize and shout louder for "stronger measures" without being specific about what those ought to be.

As always, Obama is focused on practicality. If it's not particularly glamorous to caution that this is going to take resolve and patience, the fact is that it will. There is a great deal of difference between running for president and being President. That's certainly been on display in the past week.

Obama, Tired of Games, Demands Budget

President Obama held a remarkable press conference yesterday. He served notice that he's not finished addressing gun violence, but of potentially even greater importance, the President gave congress what amounts to an ultimatum to work with him on getting a permanent budget in place with a deadline of December 11.

First, on the latest gun massacre he made a couple of good points in a new way. He compared the ongoing carnage to reducing auto accident deaths. He admitted that yes, the types of common-sense laws that have been proposed won't end all gun deaths, just as things like seat belts, air bags and better car and road engineering haven't ended all auto crash deaths. But they have reduced the rate by 75%. To say that because we can't save every life means that we should not try to save any lives or as many as we can is fatalistic and not in the normal American character. His other point on this topic was that to make headway the majority who favor these common sense improvements will need to make them a voting priority in order to get congress to change. That's because the minority of intransigent pro-gun voters are single-minded in that way and their intensity must be matched by the other side if they want to win. The President vowed to keep speaking out on the issue.

In what may have been his most important statement, President Obama laid down a marker regarding the budget. Referring to the stopgap continuing resolution to keep the government funded for 10 weeks through December 11, the President said he would not sign another such bill. He is going to insist that congress produce an actual budget. The national budget is frozen at sequester levels "temporarily" agreed to four years ago. They are pegged to the 2006 budget. Since then our population has grown 8% and the national economy has grown 12%. Many things need more money to provide the same service, some things need increases to meet new needs, and some things should be scaled down or cancelled, since they either don't work or have achieved their objectives. The resulting straight jacket produces a spending pattern that is increasingly out of sync with national needs. He was right to call it irresponsible. He is ready to negotiate on taxes and spending priorities and calls upon the Republican leadership in congress to do likewise.

Also relating to the budget, Obama put some things off limits. First, the debt ceiling needs to be raised even before December 11. There will be no negotiation on this; congress just needs to do it. Second, he will not give in to blackmail over Planned Parenthood. Some in the GOP are threatening a new shutdown over it. Obama said he understands their intensity of feeling on the matter, but it is inadmissible to jeopardize the entire economy and the full faith and credit of the USA over it. He said he feels the same way about the importance of gun legislation, but would never use that as a lever to threaten to wreck the American economy and hurt millions over an unrelated issue. Imagine, he said, if I threatened to crash the American economy if I didn't get my way over gun laws. It would be crazy. For them to threaten to do so over the debt limit for money they've already spent, or on the budget itself, is nothing less.

In our constitutional system, the President concluded, neither he nor congress can work their will without the other. They need to confer and negotiate. Because they have differing views, there will need to be compromises. He is tired of the posturing, resolute about rejecting blackmail, and ready to talk and get something done. He's right. Enough extremism is enough, it's time to govern.

Obamacare Exchanges Slated to Open Tomorrow

Tomorrow, Tuesday, October 1 will be the day the new Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) health exchanges go into effect, as you can see at  Healthcare.gov.  People who do not have employer-provided health insurance, are not on Medicare, Medicaid or military medical care will be able to get  competitive coverage at reasonable rates.

Most purchasers of moderate means will get tax subsidies to help pay for their policies.  This will include individuals who make up to $45,960 and families of four who make up to $94,200.  A family of six will get help up to an income of $126,000.   After tax breaks, the costs will be bargains.  In Pennsylvania, for instance, a 27-year-old earning $25,000, choosing a mid-level silver plan which  covers about 70 percent of medical costs, would pay $145 a month after their tax break assistance. A family of four with two children under the age of 18 that earned $50,000 a year would pay $282 per month after tax breaks for the same silver plan. 

As President Obama has been saying in recent days, people will be able to get health insurance protection for about the same cost as their cell phone bills.  These bargains are possible due to the exchanges, which will allow people to compare the offerings of the various insurers in their states directly across the board from each other on the exchange web sites.  The provision that at least 80% of premium revenues must then be spent on health care by the providers, and the requirements of what must be provided in each level of the plans also helps make sure that services provided are adequate and readily comparable for all competitors at each level.  Upper-income Americans have had some taxes raised to help pay for the subsidies, as shown at this IRS site. 

The relative simplicity and economy of the coverage will provide an attractive option for folks looking to protect themselves against the medical vicissitudes of life.  Though the enrollment begins October 1, people will have until March 31 to secure their coverage or they will have to pay a fine.

As I write this the Republican effort in the House of Representatives to tie the overall U.S. budget to the repeal or postponement of the health care roll out is still underway.  There is no way the Democratic Senate or President Obama will go along with this, so the result of GOP stubbornness on this, if they persist, can only be a government shutdown.  The reason for their frantic eagerness to try to gut the law was revealed by Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who has been leading the fight to kill Obamacare.  He said, "Once they taste the sugar of subsidized health care we'll never get rid of it."  Indeed.  Once people can afford to take their kids to the doctor they won't want to give that up.  Yes, that certainly makes sense to me.  What doesn't is why anybody would think that's a bad thing.            

     

U.S. Moves Toward Intervention in Syria

President Obama met with his national security team yesterday to decide what to do about Syria amid mounting evidence the Bashar Assad regime has used chemical weapons recently in its civil war, purportedly resulting in the deaths  of hundreds of civilians.  Reports today indicate U.S. Naval forces are being moved closer to the Eastern Mediterranean nation.

The president said a year ago that the use of lethal chemical weapons in Syria would constitute a "red line" necessitating an international response.  It appears the Administration is currently analyzing evidence to make certain that a chemical attack did in fact occur.  The president spoke with British Prime Minister David Cameron by telephone yesterday.  The prime minister's office released a statement saying the use of outlawed chemical weapons would constitute a grave threat to international law and require a firm response.  It also said that regime interference in United Nations inspection efforts indicates the Assad government "has something to hide."

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters it is pretty certain that such weapons were used.  He said the Defense Department has presented the president with a range of options.  He declined, however, to specify those options or to confirm reports that Navy warships were now massing within range of Syria.

President Obama has heretofore been reluctant to get directly involved in the Syrian civil war which has now raged for over two years, created up to two million refugees and cost, according to estimates, over 100,000 lives.  A rising against the authoritarian Assad regime began in conjunction with the "Arab Spring" movement in 2011.  The fighting has seesawed back and forth, with Arab states sending support to rebel groups and Iran and Russia backing Assad.  The tangled forces involved in the fighting include Iranian-backed Hezbollah Shi'ite extremists on Assad's side and some al-Qaeda affiliated groups in the opposition.  Obama has been concerned to keep aid to the rebels out of the hands of the al-Qaeda jihadist Sunni forces allied with the more democratic groups all fighting to oust Assad.

"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it - do we have the coalition to make it work?" Obama said in a television interview broadcast Friday. "Those are considerations that we have to take into account."  It seems the verification and the international backing are now being sought.

If action is taken, expect it to take the form of cruise missiles launched from Navy warships, the same type of action taken against the Libyan regime in its civil war.  Targets would probably include Assad's air forces and artillery units, the regime forces most capable of delivering chemical agents against the Syrian populace and rebel fighters.

Obama on Ending the "War on Terror"

President Obama's speech on May 23 about ongoing issues in our "War on Terror" was a welcome exercise in self-examination.  Nearly 12 years after the attacks of 9-11-2001 the implications of an ostensibly permanent state of low level war have the potential to permanently warp our constitutional and civil libertarian framework.  The President presented his quandary, his responsibility to defend the republic and its citizens balanced against his equal responsibility to safeguard their rights and freedoms.  His considerations were thought-provoking and timely, meant to spark national debate and strongly tilted toward offering a rationale that his own power ought to be curtailed.

Appropriately quoting constitutional framer James Madison's  observation that  "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare," the President made a compelling case for scaling back our drone program, closing the Guantanamo prisoner facility and transitioning our main anti-terrorist emphasis from a military to a law enforcement approach.  The drone strikes have accomplished most of what can reasonably be expected of them.  Most of Al-Qaeda's leadership is gone.  Yet now, civilian casualties and the violation of national territory are provoking greater and greater backlash as we target smaller and smaller fry in the terror world.  Strikes have already been scaled back to about one-fifth of what they were running in 2010.  There will now be a restriction of targeting to those known to be imminent threats to Americans who cannot be reached any other way, including by local national forces.

There are still 166 inmates at Guantanamo, over half of whom have been cleared for release.  Yet they remain under detention thanks to congressional insistence.  Obama again called on congress to act in accord with the principles of international and U.S. law.    He said, "I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism and those of us who fail to end it."

The congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the wake of 9-11 remains in effect.  The President says it is time to end it.  His is the responsible position that conferring virtually unlimited power on the President for virtually unlimited periods of time is incompatible with the constitution of a free country.  He is right.  It is also, incidentally, highly admirable of him to propose it.  How many leaders ever ask to have the power of their office limited in any fashion?  

The bottom line is that all wars must come to an end.  There will still be terrorists and atrocities.  But we cannot operate on a perpetual wartime footing without becoming a military regime or a police state.  President Obama is right.  It's time to move on.  The idea is not to let our guard down, but to remain vigilant and effective through the law enforcement, judicial and constitutional processes that were established and have been preserved over 200 years specifically for these purposes.     

Debate Recap and What's to Come

In the debate on Wednesday Mitt Romney came with his A game and Barack Obama brought his C game.  The result was, as most viewers saw it, a definite win for Romney.  The average of flash surveys of viewers showed that about 50% saw Romney as the victor while 25% thought Obama outduelled his challenger. 

Romney was clearly the better prepared, the most animated and the most focused.  His points were sharp, and often surprising.  Time and again, he appeared to flummox Obama by asserting and sticking to outright fabrications.  A few of these included such statements as these: that his tax cuts were revenue-neutral, that his health plan covers people with pre-existing conditions, that Obama's stimulus package spent $90 billion a year on green energy, and that Obama's health plan took $716 billion away from Medicare recipients but that his own plan did not.  (The truth on these Health Plan numbers is that first, these numbers are over 10 years.  Second, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, got insurers to agree to cut that much from the cost of their services in exchange for all the extra customers they are going to get when the plan's provisions activate in 2014.  So it is pure savings for the program.  The Romney-Ryan Plan, in contrast, simply reduces Medicare by that much to the recipients as they take their vouchers out to try to buy insurance. So it is all taken from the consumers.) The President tried to rebut some of these points, though not all, and often with reasonable and factual but lengthy and complicated explanations that no doubt often confused or bored debate viewers.

I feel the Obama team planned to try to run out the clock on an opponent who has been trailing in the race and causing most of his own problems.  They did not want Obama to seem "unpresidential" by too harshly attacking his opponent.  They committed the dangerous mistake of underestimating their foe and taking the match for granted.  They did not spend nearly as much time in preparation as did Romney and his team, and it showed.  While Obama was more "cool" and delivered some humor, which Romney did little of, these small personality advantages were likely at least offset by Romney's earnestness and superior sense of engagement in the process.

For the president, the first debate represents a huge lost opportunity.  He was clearly pulling ahead and had nearly locked up an electoral vote stranglehold on the election.  Republican Party supporters were vocally berating the Romney campaign.  There were murmurings that big money donors were going to start pulling their support from a losing proposition to concentrate on down ballot candidates and issues.  With a strong debate Obama could have effectively ended the Romney candidacy.  Instead, it is now game on. 

You can expect to see a very different Barack Obama on October 16 when the two meet again in Hempstead, New York.  Expect Obama to have ready and devastating ammunition when Romney talks about his budget, health plan or how much he cares about the average American.  Expect him also to have winning defenses of the Administration's accomplishments, along the lines so successfully laid out in Bill Clinton's Convention speech.  If this doesn't happen the President will find himself in serious trouble down the stretch.  You can also expect to see this counteroffensive start with Joe Biden coming at Paul Ryan very hard this Thursday in the Vice Presidential debate in much the same way Dick Cheney blasted away at and largely flattened John Edwards in 2004 after John Kerry got the better of George W. Bush in their first debate of that year.  It should get plenty lively from here on in. 

Debate Watch Event

I would like to invite everyone to join me in viewing the upcoming presidential debate this Wednesday and having a discussion afterward.  The Tulare County Democratic Central Committee has asked me to moderate their debate watch, and if you are in the area you are welcome to come.

The first of three debates between President Obama and Governor Romney will take place on Wednesday the third at 6:00 P.M. Pacific time.  The Central Committee's campaign office has a 60-inch flat screen set up for the debate which is scheduled to last 90 minutes.  When it ends at 7:30 I'll give my own recap and analysis and then invite questions or comments from the audience.  I plan to ask those who wish to contribute to keep the language clean and the demeanor appropriate for a gathering of respectable citizens.  I anticipate wrapping things up by 8:00.

The Central Committee's office is located at 1616 W. Mineral King Blvd. in Visalia, about two blocks east of Marie Callendar's Restaurant.  They have some free campaign materials and others (particularly the Obama items) for purchase, and will gladly accept donations.  There will be free hot dogs, and light refreshments for those like myself who will  be missing dinner to attend.  If you can make it I hope to see you there!

. 

Presidential Race: States to Watch

The average of recent national polls between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney has the president ahead by four percent.  However, the national vote doesn't mean anything in an American presidential election.  What matters are the separate elections in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.  The winner of each state will win its electoral vote (EV), a number equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation, which includes the number of its members in the House of Representatives, plus its two Senators.  (D.C. gets three votes, the same as the smallest states.)

The total number of EVs at stake in the election is 538, and it will take 270 to win.  In this Electoral College election there are only eight states that really matter in 2012, and you will see the candidates and their running mates returning to them time and again in the next five and a half weeks.  Their residents will also be bombarded with broadcast advertising.   

The reason only eight states matter from here on is that 42 of the 50 states, along with Washington, D.C., are already safely in one or the other candidate's columns.  Obama has comfortable leads in 19 states plus D.C. worth a total of 247 EVs.  Romney has sewed up 23 states worth 191 EVs.  That leaves eight closely contested states worth exactly 100 EVs that are still up for grabs.  To win reelection Obama needs 23 of these remaining 100 EVs.  To unseat him Romney needs 79 of them.  This makes it clear that Obama has much the easier task.  Here are the close states and the pertinent statistics.

West
Colorado (9 EV) Obama leads in recent polls by an average of 3 percent. 
Nevada (6 EV) Obama is ahead by 4. 

Midwest
Ohio (18 EV) Obama leads by 5. 
Iowa (6 EV) Obama is up by 4.

East
New Hampshire (4 EV) has Obama ahead by 3. 

South
Florida (29 EV) Obama leads by 3.
North Carolina (15 EV) Obama is up by a slim 1 percent.   
Virginia (13 EV) Obama is ahead by 4.

All these states are close but you will notice that Obama leads in every one of them.  He can win the election by winning Florida alone, even if he loses the other seven.  Winning Ohio and any other state bigger than New Hampshire would also reelect the president.  Or he could take North Carolina and Virginia, or North Carolina and Colorado, Virginia and any two other states, in short, anything that adds up to 23 or more.  He has many paths to victory.

Romney, on the other hand, has less margin for error.  He has to win Florida, and more or less has to win Ohio too.  (If Romney loses Ohio and New Hampshire but wins the other six both candidates would wind up with 269 EVs.  The tie would be settled by the House of Representatives.)  In any case, Romney has to keep Obama from winning any combination of these states adding up to 23 EVs or more. 

Now you know what to look for in the coming weeks.  You can play around with the arithmetic yourself and try out the various combinations.  And remember, a survey that tells who is leading in Iowa, Colorado or any of these states is a lot more important than one indicating who has the most votes nationwide.

Democrats Win Battle of the Conventions

Now that both major party conventions are over, it's time for a bit of reflection on how they did.  Nowadays a convention rarely chooses the party's nominee.  That is what the grueling primary process is for, and it usually does its job of winnowing things down to one candidate who will bear the standard.

There are two true purposes of the modern convention, one internal and the other external.  The internal purpose is to excite and energize delegates from all over the country to go back home and work hard for the party in the campaign.  The external purpose is to showcase the party's members, views,  leadership, and most of all its presidential and vice presidential candidates in the most favorable light possible for the nation's voters.  And in this most crucial contest there can be no doubt the Democrats at their convention gave President Obama a huge boost going forward into the home stretch of the campaign.

The Republican Convention in Tampa was certainly presentable, but it wasn't electrifying.  When it was all over, Mitt Romney got a one percent "bounce" in the polls.  Keynote Speaker New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was flat.  Florida Senator Marco Rubio, speaking to introduce Governor Romney's acceptance speech, impressed me as an excellent speaker, the best I saw in the GOP fold.   Both, however, unfortunately talked more about themselves than their party's nominee.  It seemed more they were positioning themselves for 2016 than addressing themselves wholeheartedly to the full-throated support of the 2012 ticket.  Vice Presidential pick Paul Ryan came across as a regular guy, but his remarks included so many factual inaccuracies they became the focus of the coverage.  Prospective first lady Ann Romney did a good job with a weak speech.  See for yourself.  Clint Eastwood embarrassed himself and the party with a rambling conversation with an empty chair meant to symbolize President Obama.  It derailed things right before the nominee himself took the floor.  Finally came Mitt Romney himself.  I felt he gave the best delivery of a speech I have even seen from him.  That means it was average.  See Romney's speech here.  It was not memorable, however, and included, like most of the other speakers' remarks, hardly anything of firm substance that he would do as president.  He made quick reference to a 5-point plan for the country in about fifteen seconds, then went back to generalities.

The Democratic Convention in Charlotte was, in the eyes of most longtime observers, the best in memory.  The clearest evidence for this is President Obama polling a post-convention seven percent bump in his approval rating.  Michelle Obama easily out duelled her counterpart talking about her man in her First Lady speech.  Bill Clinton gave what was likely the strongest address in either convention, taking on virtually every Republican objection to Obama's outlook and policies in impressive fashion.  He made the kinds of defenses of Democratic policies the Obama administration has been largely fumbling with during most of its tenure.  This was followed on the final night by Obama's acceptance speech, one of his customary stem winders that had the audience in tears and on its feet throughout.  It definitely helped the Democrats to go second, as they had clearly tailored their remarks to rebut earlier GOP points and pounce on Republican missteps.  Obama came off as confident yet caring, immersed in policy yet still imbued with the optimism and idealism that launched his election four years ago. 

This time it was the Democrats who put their social issues (gay rights, immigration, women's issues) front and center while the Republicans tried to avoid discussing them.  This time it was the Democrats who were on top of foreign policy while their rivals scarcely brought it up.  Obama gave detailed solutions while Romney avoided specifics altogether.  There are still eight weeks left in the campaign and a lot can happen.  But the strong edge the Democrats gained in the Battle of the Conventions puts Obama in the driver seat at this point.  To win, Team Romney will have to come from behind to make up a good deal of lost ground.      

The Ryan Pick

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate clearly marks the direction his campaign will take.  Ryan, the House budget chair, is a true believer in cutting taxes for the wealthy and paying for them by slashing support for students, the elderly and the poor.  The Ryan pick will thus energize GOP Tea Party supporters and elate Wall Street but will alienate just about everyone else.

Representative Ryan (R-Wisconsin) is smart, well-spoken and looks like the guy next door.  What he stands for, however, is the same supply-side ideology that has served few others than the top 1%.  His famous proposed budget  envisions reducing the top tax rate from 35% to 25% and the capital gains rate charged on income like stocks to zero.  People like Romney would pay virtually no tax at all under Ryan's plan.

In order to still try to cut expenses in the face of such large revenue reductions, Ryan would put a cap on Medicare and turn it into a voucher program in which seniors would have to go out and try to find insurance for themselves.  Since the Obama health plan with its requirements that people be eligible for insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions would be repealed under a Romney-Ryan administration, you can imagine what luck the typical 80-year-old would have in trying to buy insurance on the open market.  According to the congressional Budget office, the plan would cost seniors an additional $6500 a year--all so that millionaires and billionaires could enjoy greater tax breaks. 

There would be other cuts too, to Medicaid, education, student loans, food stamps, infrastructure and much else.  He asks for many sacrifices from those who can least afford it in order to shower benefits on those who already have it made.  The upshot of Ryan's addition to the ticket is that it plays right into the Obama campaign's characterization of Romney as out of touch with the average American and concerned only with the welfare of the rich.  The President has already begun making these points and highlighting Ryan's other budget ideas on the trail in Iowa today.

Representative Steve Israel, (D-New York) chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign, is suddenly very optimistic about picking up House seats in November.  He said today that Democratic candidates should concentrate on three issues this fall: "Medicare, Medicare and Medicare."

It is difficult to see how Ryan's draconian outlook will help the GOP ticket with undecided and swing voters.  The dynamics of the election are starting to look a lot like 1996, when Bill Clinton won re-election over another Republican team featuring a lead candidate with a lot of shortcomings and a number two known as an idea man whose ideas upon examination proved to be highly unpopular.  In those days it was Bob Dole and Jack Kemp.  Nowadays the team of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, running against another Democratic incumbent, face many of the same problems.  It is likely Gov. Romney has hurt his chances more than helped them with this choice.

Historic Court Ruling on Health Care

Today's release of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling validating President Obama's signature health care overhaul marks a groundbreaking watershed in American history and the culmination of a process begun exactly 100 years ago by Theodore Roosevelt.  The United States has now joined the civilized countries of the world in establishing access to medical care as a national policy priority and commitment.  In simple terms, the principle at issue was whether when somebody is sick in this country they should be able to see a doctor, or not.  That has now been decided in the affirmative.  

As with other great progressive intiatives initially decried by conservatives such as Social Security and Medicare, if the Republicans are not able to win this year's election and overturn the law, it will likely attain immense popularity once its full provisions take effect.  The winners will be the American people, particularly the 50 million currently without health insurance.

The ruling is sure to engender an even higher pitch of furious opposition than has existed up to now from the hard Republican base.  But it will also give the President and his allies a second opportunity to win the public debate about the law and its real meaning for public health in the nation.  He and they must clearly do a better job of promoting the plan than they did the first time around. 

There is a good foundation to start from.  The public remains supportive of many of the Affordable Care Act's provisions. Popular features include carrying dependents on parents' insurance until age 26, that no one may be denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, the prohibition against dropping expensive patients and against imposing lifetime caps, and the requirement that insurance companies spend at least 85% of their revenues on actual health care for customers. 

It will also be necessary to refute the many sensationalist and erroneous charges that have been brought against it.  People who currently have employer-provided health plans, who pay for their own privately-purchased insurance, or who are on Medicare or Medicaid should not see any change at all.  People will still be able to go to their regular doctor.  There are no "death panels."  People will have to purchase health insurance, but will receive subsidies to do so on a sliding scale based on their income.  A basic value of the law is responsibility: everybody needs health care at some point, so it's only fair that everybody contributes to its provision.  The Government Accountability Office calculated that many of the ACA's other provisions will act to reduce costs in the health care system as well.  Already in the past two years we have seen a marked slowing in the rate of escalating health costs. 

The High Court's decision removes the constitutional challenge to Obamacare, but not the political one.  That makes it all the more crucial for proponents to work for Barack Obama's re-election.  Only a Mitt Romney presidency and close to 60 Republican votes in the U.S. Senate (they currently have 47) are likely to reverse the health initiative now.  So while today's announcement is highly historic it does not end the story quite yet.  The last chapter will be settled on November 6--Election Day-- 2012.

Obama's Historic Statement on Gay Rights

President Obama's announcement this week in an ABC New interview that he personally favors marriage equality is one of the most courageous statements any major politician has made in some time.  It is reminiscent of President Kennedy's statement on civil rights in 1963,  when JFK's introduction of a strong civil rights bill threatened to cost him the votes of a Southern electorate that was still voting Democratic at the time. 

This week's lopsided vote in favor of marriage restrictions in North Carolina underscores the political risk President Obama is taking.  While current Gallup polling shows support for marriage equality is now nationally in the majority for the first time (51% to 48%), it is quite likely to hurt the President in some swing states in the fall.  You can't forget that the presidential election is not a national poll but 51 separate winner-take-all elections held in the states and the District of Columbia.  Obama only won North Carolina by 14,000 votes in 2008, and the margin in favor of the North Carolina measure to ban same-sex marriage was greater than twenty percent.

The President's statement is anything but what a calculating politician would have done.  Such an operator would have stuck with the safe bet and kept his views muddled, not wanting to alienate those opposed to gay rights in battleground states. 

Instead, he staked out a position in keeping with the groundbreaking figure he is: the first African-American President, the exemplar of the nation's progress along the path of overcoming bigotry by race, is now on record as the first to publicly stand against bigotry by sexual orientation.  May 9, 2012 will go down as one of those important dates in American history, when a President took a stand against the last legalized discrimination remaining in the fabric of American society.  As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg noted, no major extension of rights proposed by any American president has failed to eventually be enacted.  Though it may take some time, I do not expect this to be an exception.

I don't mind admitting my gratitude as a history teacher to have personally seen, as a child, the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and as an adult the election of our first black president and the first presidential enunciation of true equality for LGBT citizens.  There is no doubt in my mind that the day will come when people will scratch their heads that there ever was a controversy over equality for gays, much as younger people today are perplexed that there ever was a controversy over equality by race. 

I am proud of our president today, regardless of how this plays out electorally.  He has done that which is the right thing to do, and having done so places Barack Obama for all time on the right side of human rights and of history itself on this groundbreaking issue. 

2012 Endorsement: Re-Elect President Obama

The Presidential nominating contests are now over.  In the past few days President Barack Obama has officially kicked off his re-election campaign with rallies in the battleground states of Virginia and Ohio, and challenger Mitt Romney has seen his last serious opponent withdraw from the Republican race.  With both nominations now assured at the respective major party conventions, it is time to go ahead and make my endorsement.  The choice for 2012 is clear: President Obama deserves a second term and should be re-elected President of the United States. 

The president who takes the oath of office on January 20, 2013 will confront a host of problems.  Domestic policy, including the economy, will be at the forefront of these.  Yet the nation also faces serious challenges in foreign policy.  Beyond this, the next administration will also be called upon to navigate a number of serious and inherently divisive social issues as well.   On all three counts, President Obama is the best choice for the American people.

Obama has the right prescription for what ails the American economy.  He entered office during the worst recession in 80 years, a downturn caused by the reckless irresponsibilities of a financial industry that in creating a housing bubble and risky investment instruments, brought the global financial structure to the edge of collapse.  This had been abetted in government by a diffident philosophy that gave irresponsible fast buck operators free rein to operate without serious regulatory accountability.  President Obama acted on that with Wall Street Regulatory Reform and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  He also stopped the free-falling economy with a $787 billion stimulus package that stopped the job losses and has produced job gains every month for over two years now.  See these graphs. 

In contrast, Romney wants to return to the lax regulatory stance of the Bush years and supports the Paul Ryan budget plan of tax cuts for the wealthy and budget cuts to the infrastructure and human needs of the rest of society.  Analysis shows that the Romney budget would actually increase the deficit by cutting revenues so sharply.  Beyond that, its cuts in domestic spending would follow the "austerity" path the European nations adopted and that now is leading them into a double-dip recession.  Spending cuts are working no better for them in a recession than they did for Herbert Hoover, and for the same reason.  Yet Romney hews to the discredited party line.

Obama has also excelled in foreign policy, ending the Iraq War and now in the process of successfully winding down the Afghan War.  His drone strikes despite Pakistani protests have eliminated two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership and his decisive action in ordering the Bin Laden raid rid the world of its greatest terrorist menace.  He demonstrated admirable deftness in dealing with the Arab Spring, including the insurgency against Libya's Qaddafi.  He is handling the Korean and Iranian situations with the perfect balance of diplomatic incentives and sanctions.  As a result, under Obama's leadership the U.S. is once again respected and even liked in the world. 

In Romney's case, on world affairs he appears disengaged and uninformed.  He relies on many of the same interventionist neocon advisers left over from the ruinous Bush-Cheney administration.  He is still living in the Cold War, saying that "Russia is public enemy number one" in one memorable statement.  As if we haven't had enough problems with open-ended wars, he joined the rest of the Republican candidates in advocating starting a new war against Iran.  He is clearly out of his depth in foreign affairs, a shortcoming that could be highly damaging were he to become the leader of the free world.  

Obama is similarly the better of the two on social issues by far.  In supporting the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military, supporting the Violence Against Women Act, leaving women's questions such as abortion and contraception up to them, supporting the DREAM Act and standing strong for college Pell Grants and low student loan interest rates, the President continues to serve the causes of fairness and equality in society.  Romney, on the other hand, has stood with the extreme right-wingers in his party on all these issues except for his belated support for the student loan interest rate matter.  He campaigned on being the most opposed to comprehensive immigration reform, is against gay rights and has supported all the recent restrictions Republican-controlled state legislatures have enacted against permitting women to make their own choices.  It is no coincidence Romney trails the President 70-14 with Latinos and 55-39 among women.

Obama Masters Foreign Policy

The recent successful end of the rebellion in Libya marks another milestone in President Barack Obama's conduct of foreign policy.  This latest in a remarkable string of successes is all the more striking given the president's lack of international or defense credentials when he ran for office.  It says a lot about his basic outlook, validating a measured and principled approach to the world in contrast to the wasteful, unprincipled and ultimately counterproductive methodology of his predecessor in office. While Obama has certainly shown no aversion to the use of force when he considers it necessary, he has consistently shown an astute capacity to tailor the scale of the action to the need at hand.

On his third day in office, Obama fulfilled campaign promises by signing executive orders ending torture and closing secret CIA prisons.  These actions were met with relief around the world. Juxtaposed with this was his order three months later to kill Somali pirates holding American merchant sea captain Richard Phillips hostage.  The lesson seemed to be that the U.S. could and would stand firm against criminal thuggery and extortion while upholding its traditional principles--that it was not an either/or proposition as the Bush-Cheney administration had contended.  Why not both?

President Obama followed this up with the first visionary appeal by an American president to the people of the Middle East on their own soil with his landmark Cairo Speech of June 4, 2009.  In it he spoke out against the allure of violence by stating, "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity."  And in a passage that now sounds prophetic, he continued,

"But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.  Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away...and we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments--provided they govern with respect for their people."

That these words were delivered in the Egypt of the corrupt and oppressive dictator Hosni Mubarak is not inconsequential.  To what extent these appeals contributed to later events may be revealed in  historical studies to come, but it cannot be denied that the American outreach Obama initiated in his early months culminated in the October 9, 2009 announcement that the new president had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.  In the words of the Nobel Committee, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy, and cooperation between peoples...Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics."

This climate was revealed in the Arab Spring of 2011, when the citizens of Tunisia and Egypt successfully agitated for freedom and democracy and ousted their authoritarian rulers.  Uprisings also took place in Libya, Syria and Bahrain.  Obama's adroit handling of the situation in Libya, focused on air support and enlisting the contributions of allies, ultimately resulted in the overthrow of the odious regime of Moammar Ghaddafi without a single American casualty at a cost of about $1.5 billion: a clear delineation from how the Bush Administration went about regime change in Iraq.  There, U.S. boots on the ground resulted in American losses of 4,481 dead and 32,195 wounded at a financial price tag of $757.8 billion in direct costs and possibly $1.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, including indirect costs.

Speaking of the inherited wars, Obama personally made the bold decision that killed Osama bin Laden in May despite potential diplomatic fallout with Pakistan, and also recently eliminated English-language Al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen.  His stepped-up use of drone attacks has decimated the terror group's leadership in Pakistan.  Meanwhile, all American forces are scheduled to be out of Iraq by the end of this year and Afghanistan by 2014. The Obama scalpel has proven to be a far more effective and economical strategy than the Bush-Cheney bludgeon.  While they excelled at braggadocio and posturing, Obama quietly shows good judgment and gets results.  The contrast could not be more refreshing nor more helpful to America's image and interests.